Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122243120
label
Church Groups in favor of lifting ban on Gays in the Military [1993]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122243120
contentType
document
title
Church Groups in favor of lifting ban on Gays in the Military [1993]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Public Liaison (Clinton Administration)
Suzanna Valdez's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122243120
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-5721331-20150017F-013-002-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
65f756612fbe182e
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2015-0017-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Public Liaison
Series/Staff Member:
Suzanna Valdez
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
4268
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Church Groups in favor of lifting ban on Gays in the Military [1993]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
29
5
5
3
General Board of Church and Society
of The United Methodist Church
BOARD OF CHURCH AND
JANE HULL HARVEY
GENERAL
SOCIETY.
Assistant General Secretary
Ministry of
God's Human Community
The METHODIST
100 Maryland Avenue, Northeast
Washington, D.C. 20002
202-488-5654
Recycled Paper
Fax: 202-488-5619
66
THE REVEREND
ELENORA GIDDINGS IVORY
DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON OFFICE
110 MARYLAND AVE, N.E.
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
(U.S.A.)
(202) 543-1126
FATHER ROBERT J. BROOKS
THE PRESIDING BISHOP'S STAFF OFFICER
WASHINGTON
110 MARYLAND AVENUE. N.E., SUITE 309
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
(202) 547-7300
WASHINGTON OFFICE
I (800) 228-0515
InterfaithlMPACT for Justice and Peace
110 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
James M. Bell
Washington, D.C. 20002
Executive Director
202/543-2800
FAX 202/547-8107
Jun 25,95 10.04 NO.V12 r.vi
TELECOPIER COVER LETTER
FAX
OFFICE FOR CHURCH IN SOCIETY
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
110 Maryland Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone (202) 543-1517
Fax #(24hours) (202) 543-5994
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING TO;
NAME
ALEXIS HERMAN
COMPANY PUBLIC LIALSON, WHITE HOUSE
Fax Number
456-6218
Name FROM: DAY LINTNER
Account UCC
Total # of pages 8
including this cover page.
Date 6/25
Time: 5
am ON pm
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES AS SHOWN ABOVE, PLEASE CONTACT OUR
OFFICE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
Message
Person handling transmission:
2025435994
Jun 25,93 10:54 NO. .012 r.uz
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
OFFICE FOR CHURCH IN SOCIETY
110 MARYLAND AVENUE N.E., SUITE 504 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-1517
June 28, 1993
To: Alexis Herman
From: Jay Lintner, Director, Washington Office, United Church of
Christ
Is it possible for a delegation of heads of Washington offices from
the religious community to meet with you on Monday or Tuesday?
Depending on schedules, this might include the following:
Jim Hamilton, National Council of Churches
Lynne Landsberg, Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Robert Brooks, Episcopal Church
Jane Hull Harvey, United Methodist Church
Eleanora Giddings Ivory, Presbyterian Church
Kay Dowhower, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Bob Alpern, Unitarian Universalist
Jim Bell, Interfaith IMPACT
Jay Lintner, United Church of Christ
A delegation from the above will want to convey the strong support
of the religious community for lifting the military ban on gays and
lesbians.
specifically, we urge:
1. The government should not force people to lie. There should be
no restrictions on private speech.
2. Treat all sexual orientations equally. DO not discharge based
on status.
3. Treat all sexual misconduct equally.
If a meeting is possible, we would very much appreciate it. We had
hoped that a compromise could be worked out between President
clinton, Secretary Aspin and Ceneral Powell which we could support,
based on these principles. However, now that leaks have forced
this into a public contest for support, we wish to share with the
White House our strong feelings on this matter.
I would also like to suggest a second political option. IF the
President decides to go with the more principled option, which we
hope he will, and if he does not make his public announcement until
July 15, you might wish to know that the General Synod of the
United Church of Christ convenes in St. Louis on July 15. If the
President would like to make his announcement with the background
of our General Synod and with the support of our General Synod, we
would be happy to set that up.
Enclosed, if you have not seen it, is the testimony given by our
President, Dr. Paul Sherry, before the House Armed Services
Committee.
TEL NO. 2025435994
Jun 25,93 16:54 NO.012 r.ov
TESTIMONY
OF
THE REV. DR. PAUL H. SHERRY
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
MAY 4, 1993
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. My name is Paul Sherry. I'm
speaking today as President of the United Church of Christ, a denomination of 1.6 million
members and 6400 local churches. My testimony is based on the policy statements of our
General Synod, the most widely representative body in our denomination. Our General
Synod and other national bodies have spoken out many times and in many ways affirming
civil rights for gay and lesbian persons. While in our system of church governance no one
person speaks for or attempts to represent the beliefs of all the members or all the
churches, the General Synod does offer moral guidance to our churches and for the nation.
While my testimony today is based on my personal convictions and the position of
the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, I have also been asked by many of my
colleagues among religious leaders to convey to you their own support for ending
discrimination against gay and lesbian persons in the military. While each of us would want
to speak out of a distinctive theological tradition, and is accountable to policy bases
formulated by differing structures of authority, we share a common conviction that the civil
rights guaranteed for all citizens should be guaranteed for gay and lesbian persons as well.
Gay and lesbian persons should have the same right to military service as heterosexual
persons, and should be held to the same standard of conduct. The religious leaders who
have asked me to convey this conviction to you include:
The Rt. Rev. Edmond L. Browning, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal
Church
The Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
The Rev. Dr. Herbert W. Chilstrom, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America
Bishop Frederick C. James, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Dr. C. William Nichols, General Minister and President, Christian
Church (Disciples of Christ)
2025435994
Jun 25,93 16:54 NO.012 r.04
The Rev. Troy Perry, Elder of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan
Community Churches
Rabbi Alexander Schindler, President of the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations
Dr. William Schulz, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association
Dr. Gordon L. Sommers, President of the Provincial Elders Conference,
Moravian Church in America
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, Council of Bishops of the United Methodist
Church
Dr. Daniel E. Weiss, General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches
A letter to then President-elect Bill Clinton in November urging him to carry out his
commitment to rescind the ban also carried the signature of Dr. James Andrews, Stated
Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
***********
There are four fundamental points I wish to make today:
1.
There is significant support in the religious community for lifting the ban
against gay and lesbian persons in the military.
2.
The sexual misconduct of military personnel, not their sexual orientation,
should be the issue.
3.
Prejudice should not determine policy.
4.
The moral fiber of our nation is very much at stake in this issue.
I. Religious Support for Lifting the Ban
The support of my colleagues among U.S. religious leaders, to which I have already
referred, is evidence that a very significant part of the religious community, in most cases
authorized by the official positions of national policy-making assemblies, has for years urged
an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Our denomination first passed a
resolution in 1969 on "Homosexuals and the Law" urging an end to discrimination in
employment, among other things. In 1975 the General Synod issued a major
pronouncement entitled "Civil Liberties Without Discrimination Related to Affectional or
Sexual Preference." (See Appendix). In 1972 the first openly gay minister in our church
was ordained by the Golden Gate Association of the United Church of Christ. This action
of a regional body was affirmed by the General Synod the following year, and soon
TEL NO 2025435994
Jun 25,93 16:54 NO. V12 P.U5
sexual orientation was added to our national equal opportunity policy. As recently as 1991
the General Synod again overwhelmingly reaffirmed the gifts for ministry of gay, lesbian and
bisexual people, urging that they be welcomed and recognized in local churches and regional
hodies.
There has been an assumption that throughout church history the church has opposed
homosexuality and considered it a sin. Many scholarly studies of church history, however,
reveal that this hostility has not been consistent. There have been periods of fierce
opposition, as well as periods of tolerance.
The Bible has been used by some as a basis for the condemnation of homosexuality.
However, there is much debate about this question and about how to interpret the six brief
references to homosexuality contained in the Bible. One thing is clear. Scripture does point
us, over and over again, to the core of the Christian Gospel -- the need for love to be at the
center of our lives and an overriding concern for justice and mercy for the oppressed.
For these reasons, it is distressing to note how this issue is often portrayed as a battle
between the religious community on the one hand, resisting any change, and the gay
community on the other hand, seeking change. This is simply not accurate. This perception
is frequently promoted by the media as was the case, for example, during the recent March
on Washington on April 25. The thousands of members of the religious delegation
participating in the march were, for the most part, ignored by the media, including the
Washington Post, which chose instead to cover the small gathering of religious persons
opposing the march with shouted slogans. As you consider this issue of such fundamental
public and personal importance, I hope you will take into account the brond support from
the religious community I represent today.
II.
People of all sexual orientations should be judged by their behavior, in this case
specifically by their sexual misconduct. People should not be judged by their sexual
orientation,
While the religious community and the nation are still in the midst of a profound and
difficult debate about the moral character of various forms of sexual behavior, there is a
growing conviction that sexual orientation is not an adequate or appropriate basis for
judging others. We are what we are and who WC are. Before God, all people should be
treated with profound dignity, for Jews and Christians alike believe all of us are created in
the image of God. From this fundamental principle our forbears developed a constitutional
system that has slowly expanded its circle of those afforded equal protection before the law.
A person's race or gender no longer can be cause to deny equal opportunity or full
participation in our society, including the military. I believe the time has come, indeed is
long overdue, to extend this basic American principle to gay and lesbian citizens as well.
Given the fears, misunderstanding and prejudice surrounding homosexuality in our
society, it is not surprising that the change in policy being proposed to the military is being
met with uncertainty, resistance and in some cases hostility. This same reaction has
NO 2025435994
Jun 25,93 10:54 NO. .
characterized many other sectors of our society, including the church. I would like to share,
briefly, the experience of our own church as it has struggled with this issue in its own life.
When the Golden Gate Association of the United Church of Christ ordained the
Rev. Bill Johnson in 1972, be was the first openly gay or lesbian person ordained by a
mainline Protestant denomination. What made this significant event possible? It was the
fact that Christians in the San Francisco Bay area had come to know Bill Johnson. He was
not a cause but a person. Because they knew him they were able to see and appreciate his
ability. They had grown to trust him, his integrity and his gift for ministry. Rather than
judge him for his orientation, they were able to judge him on the basis of his conduct.
Preconceptions and prejudices fade before the knowledge of a person's character, conduct
and ability. The process of transformation is slow. It is still difficult for many church
people to get to know gay and lesbian Christians because the church is not generally
perceived to be a safe place for homosexual persons to reveal their orientation. In spite of
the challenge, however, we are working at the task of creating safe and accepting
environments.
I believe this experience can be repeated in military service. Gays and lesbians are
already serving in the military. They need to be judged, not on their sexual orientation, but
on their whole being, on their conduct and their integrity and their skill and their principles
and the way they perform their duties. The current policy forces gay and lesbian persons
to lie. They are forced to commit an immoral act: to lie about who they are. I believe
when they are allowed to tell the truth and to be known, trust will build, just as it is slowly
beginning to build in the church.
As we have watched thousands and thousands of church people grow in their
understanding of human sexuality, there is one consistent factor in this profound cultural
change: heterosexual people in our churches have begun to know openly gay and lesbian
Christians, and as that has happened, old assumptions and stereotypes have disappeared.
We believe that will happen in the military.
So what we are asking for is simply an end to discrimination based on sexual
orientation. As the focus shifts from orientation to behavior, we recognize that many issues
of sexual conduct or misconduct will need to be examined and addressed. We expect that
the military, which already has quite different rules for sexual behavior than the general
society, will need to extend those same rules to gays and lesbians. Given the problem of
sexual harassment revealed in such recent events as the Tailhook scandal, questions of
adaptations to the code of conduct for openly gay or lesbian persons may in fact be only a
small portion of the much larger question of scxual conduct by all military personnel.
III. Prejudice should not determine policy,
Few would maintain today that the current policy can be defended by arguing that
gay people are not good soldiers. The honorable and courageous service of countless gay
and lesbian persons clearly contradicts this. Instead, the rationale for keeping the ban now
2025435994
Jun 25,93 10:54 NO.012 r.ur
largely centers on what it will do to morale, unit cohesion, mutual trust, recruitment and
retention. In other words, the current ban is based on how the military believes straight
soldiers will react to openly gay and leshian soldiers. The military fears the prejudice of its
own troops. The ban assumes that homophobia is in control and that commanders are
either unwilling or unable to change that.
Many have noted that these same fears and objections were raised when the military
faced racial integration and when the military faced admitting women. The echoes of
previous prejudice are audible today. Therefore, I assume that many of the same techniques
that have helped the military make adjustments to race and gender differences will be
helpful in the current context. One key is certainly leadership. Strong military leadership
is necessary to maintain a work environment which is comfortable for all personnel. The
command needs to set the tone for the troops to follow. Commanding officers can be
responsible for insuring that sexism, racism and homophobia are not supported or condoned
in their units.
In this regard, we greatly admire the leadership that President Clinton has exhibited
on this issue. If we are to rid our society of homophobia, strong leadership is needed. We
appreciated that leadership from President Clinton, and we ask for that same leadership
from the Congress and from the military.
This is a time of societal change, change that is long overdue. We have watched
heterosexuals members of our churches change as they have come to know gay and lesbian
Christians on a personal basis. Prejudice is based, in part, on fear of the unknown. It is
time to end a discriminatory policy based on prejudice, a policy that itself promotes
prejudice.
IV. The moral fiber of our nation is very much at stake in this debate.
Some would argue that our society's very structure is being undermined by gay and
lesbian persons declaring their orientation openly and demanding the civil rights guaranteed
to all other American citizens. We sec it quite the opposite. For the ban against gays and
lesbians in the military runs counter to all the basic principles of our nation: liberty and
justice for all. To allow the military to discriminate is morally intolerable and contradictory
to the values that undergird our society.
To quote from our 1975 General Synod pronouncement, "Denial and violation of the
civil liberties of the individual and her or his right to equal protection under the law
defames that worth and dignity. and is, therefore, morally wrong. Our Christian faith
requires that we respond to the injustice in our society manifested in the denial and
violation of the civil liberties of persons whose affectional or sexual preference is toward
persons of the same gender."
NO. 2025435994
Jun 25,93 16:54 NO.012 F.U8
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I urge you to do that which is morally
right, that which leads us toward a society free from fear, a society that encourages honesty
and accountability, a society where prejudice is overcome. Please end discrimination in the
military. Thank you.
Dr. Paul H. Sherry, President
United Church of Christ
700 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
(216)736-2101
June 28, 1993
President Bill Clinton
The White House
Christian
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Church
Washington, DC 20500
(Disciples
of Christ)
Dear Mr. President:
plan sive copy
to
Ruby
Interfaith
IMPACT
As the directors of Washington offices for our denominations and faith groups, we know how divisive
for Justice
the debate has been on lifting the military ban on gays and lesbians. That divisiveness exists in our
and Peace
churches and synagogues.
National
We urge you to stand by your principles.
Council of
Churches
Washington
It is immoral for the nation's largest employer to discriminate. It is immoral for the government to
Office
force people to lie. It is immoral to rob people of their human dignity in the way that the military
has been doing.
Presbyterian
Church (USA)
Washington
We hope that as much as possible you will hold to these basic principles:
Office
All sexual orientations should be treated equally.
All sexual misconduct and sexual harassment should be treated equally.
Union of
American
We are disappointed that compromise seems necessary. As you attempt to compromise basic
Hebrew
principle, we urge that you include these three specific principles as you draft your executive order:
Congregations
Religious
Action
1. Individuals should not be discharged based on sexual orientation or status.
Center
2. There should be equal enforcement of sexual misconduct violations.
3. There should be no restrictions placed on private speech.
United
Church
of Christ
We know from personal experience that there is a price for leadership on this issue. We also know
Office
there is a greater price to the nation for failure to meet very basic human rights. For the sake of our
for Church
national community, we urge you to offer this principled leadership.
in Society
Sincerely yours,
E
United
Methodist
Church
James M. Bell
A. Garnett Day
General Board
Executive Director
Director, Church and Community
of Church
& Society
Interfaith IMPACT
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
for Justice and Peace
James A. Hamilton
Jane Hull Harvey
Director, Washington Office
Head of Washington Office
National Council of Churches of Christ
General Board of Church and Society
Contact:
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
110 Maryland Ave., N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Elenora Giddings Ivory
Jay Lintner
(202)543-1517
Director, Washington Office
Director, Washington Office
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Office for Church in Society
United Church of Christ
David Saperstein
Executive Director, Religious Action Center
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
OF
BOARD
CHURCH
AND
GENERAL
********
General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church
SOCIETY-HOWNHOL
100 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 488-5600
THE
DÉLINO
METHODIST
Social Principles of The United Methodist Church, Paragraph 71 G
Rights of Homosexual Persons
Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to support
those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in
protecting their rightful claims where they have: shared material resources, pensions, guardian
relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to
contractual relationships which involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and
equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms
of coercion against gays and lesbians.
November 30, 1993
The Honorable Bill Clinton
President-elect
Governor's Mansion
1 State Capitol, Suite 250
Little Rock, AK 72201
Dear Mr. President-elect
Your commitment to end discrimination against openly gay and lesbian members of the armed
services was greeted by many in the country, as well as by many in the religious community, as a
welcome sign of your desire to extend full civil rights and equal protection of the law to all in our
society. Refusal to induct a person into the military, or the discharge of a person, solely on the basis
of sexual orientation, is intolerable. Such government sanctioned action by military leaders has only
served to legitimate and encourage other acts of discrimination against gay and lesbian persons in our
society which, at times, have led to harassment, violence, even death. Protection of the rights of gay
and lesbian persons in the military becomes, therefore, an important act of justice in its own right,
as well as a symbolic statement of our nation's commitment to liberty and justice for all.
People of faith and conscience are not of one mind about the nature of homosexuality or the morale
character of gay and lesbian lifestyles. These questions divide the religious community just as they
divide the larger society. However, regardless of one's position on these questions, there is a growing
consensus that homosexuality should not be cause for discrimination, and that attitudes or behavior
that encourage violence are to be condemned.
We commend you for your courageous commitment to end injustice in the military with regard to gay
and lesbian persons. While we recognize that the implementation of this executive order will require
careful planning and consultation, we encourage you to fulfill your pledge as quickly and as clearly
as possible following your inauguration.
As you encounter fear, misunderstanding, or resistance to this action, please be assured of our
continued support and constant prayers. Thank you.
Yours respectfully,
Dr. Paul H. Sherry
Rabbi Alexander Schindler
President, United Church of Christ
President, Union of American
Cleveland, Ohio
Hebrew Congregations
New York, New York
Dr. C. William Nichols
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert
General Minister and President
Council of Bishops
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
The United Methodist Church
Indianapolis, Indiana
San Francisco, California
Dr. James Andrews
Stated Clerk
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Louisville, Kentucky
RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER
OF REFORM JUDAISM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 17, 1993
CONTACT: LAURA SHEINKOPF
(202) 387-2800
INTERFAITH CALL TO LIFT BAN ON
GAYS AND LESBIANS IN THE
MILITARY
Statement of Rabbi Lynne F. Landsberg
The Religious Action Center
Associate Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
pursues social justice and
religious liberty by
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
mobilizing the American
Jewish Community and
serving as its advocate
in the nation's capital
The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, representing over 1.5 million Reform Jews
and 865 congregations nationwide, commends the various religious and civil rights groups
2027 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
working toward full acceptance of gays and lesbians in the military.
(202) 387-2800
Rabbi David Saperstein
As Jews, we believe that the Divine image reflected in every human being must be cherished
Director and Counsel
and affirmed. Denial of that image by systematic discrimination and exclusion not only
Rabbi Lynne Landsberg
dissolves the bonds that unite us as citizens; it also rends the precious ties we share as children
Associate Director
of one Creator.
Evely Laser Shiensky,
Chairperson
We recognize that religious antagonism towards homosexuals has contributed to the acceptance
Commission on Social Action
of Reform Judaism
of anti-gay bias, but just as such acts of hate have no place in communities of faith, neither
may we tolerate them in the central institutions of our national life.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie
Director
Commission on Social Action
of Reform Judaism
Military service provides a source of great pride and an important avenue of opportunity for
thousands of our citizens. Yet our country, founded upon the ideals of equality and
democracy, obstinately adheres to the tactics of a totalitarian regime. Witness the facts:
The Religious Action Center
is under the auspices of
FACT: The overwhelming majority of NATO armies (14 out of 16) include gay and lesbian
the Commission on Social
Action of Reform Judaism,
personnel. Still the recruitment message of our U.S. Armed Forces reads, "Gays and lesbians
a joint instrumentality of
the Central Conference of
need not apply."
American Rabbis and
the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations
with its affiliates;
FACT: Gays and lesbians now serve and will always serve the U.S. Armed Forces with
American Conference
of Cantors,
distinction that even their foes admire. Even Navy Vice Admiral Donnell has admitted that,
Association of Reform
Zionists of America,
"they are among the command's top professionals." And, still our military's "welcome mat"
National Federation of
reads "Gays and lesbians need not apply."
Temple Brotherhoods,
National Federation of
Temple Sisterhoods,
North American Federation
FACT: Some of the most powerful and efficient armies in the world -- including the Israeli
of Temple Youth.
Defense Force -- have found, in the words of Prime Minister and Defense Minister Yitzhak
Rabin, "no reason to discriminate." Yet our defense forces maintain that gays and lesbians
are "security risks" and that they "need not apply."
FACT: If we maintain that gays and lesbians are a security risk, we impugn their patriotism and imply
that gay and lesbian Americans are tantamount to the enemy.
If these are the facts, what are we to conclude?
That the only perversion here is our perversion of justice, that the only lapse in morale here is the one
caused by our own lapse in moral leadership, that the only behavior we must be ashamed of is our own
-- our active exclusion, our active discrimination, our active rejection of patriotic American citizens eager
to serve their country.
We Jews know only too well what "need not apply" means. Those three little words reflect an entire
philosophy of hate and exclusion under the cruel misnomer of "values": "American values," "traditional
values" or that of its most recent pernicious incarnation, "family values."
These codewords have been used throughout our history to define and legitimize racism, anti-Semitism,
misogyny, xenophobia, and now -- a not SO new twist -- homophobia.
Yes, gay people have come to the fore as the new demon, the new alien, the new scapegoat. We cannot
condone any of this -- not as Americans, and especially not as Jews. For we have seen it all before:
We have seen membership barred with a wink and a nod.
We have felt the pain of subtle and not SO subtle exclusion.
And, we have witnessed the violence that results when such bigotry becomes national policy.
As religious people we recognize and embrace the gay and lesbian community for what they are. They
are not the enemy. They are us and we are them.
As Rabbi Alexander Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, has often
said. "I use the plural pronoun "we" based on a simple fact, a fact that any Jewish child with a crayon
can tell you: that the star of David contains within it the triangle. Based on that essential geometry, all
of us are indeed one community, one people, bound to one another by indissoluble bonds of kinship."
The UAHC is here today to join other faith groups to call upon all religious Americans to pray that
America will renew its covenant with the best and not the worst of its heritage, to remember and to
remind the nation that people of God -- the truly religious -- advocate equality, unity, love and respect.
We are here today to say, loudly and clearly, that the real traditional values of American life -- if not
always of American history -- are those of freedom, liberty and equality.
We are here today to join our voice with other religious voices in one chorus demanding "End the ban
now."
RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER
OF REFORM JUDAISM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 23, 1993
CONTACT: LAURA SHEINKOPF
(202) 387-2800
RELIGIOUS LEADER DECRIES INJUSTICE OF MILITARY BAN
Press Conference Marking Conclusion of the "Tour of Duty"
The Religious Action Center
pursues social justice and
To End the Ban Against Gays and Lesbians in the Military
religious liberty by
mobilizing the American
Jewish Community and
Statement of Rabbi Lynne F. Landsberg
serving as its advocate
in the nation's capital
Associate Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
2027 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-2800
I stand here today as the representative of the nation's largest
Rabbi David Saperstein
Director and Counsel
Jewish organization the national Reform Jewish movement. I stand
here today because burned into our Jewish souls are the scars of two
Rabbi Lynne Landsberg
Associate Director
thousand years of Western bigotry, discrimination, and persecution.
Evely Laser Shlensky,
How fitting that we gather here, in Washington, DC, in the shadow of
Chairperson
Commission on Social Action
he new Holocaust Museum to remind us that we, Jews and Gays, died
of Reform Judaism
side by side in the death camps of Nazi Germany to warn us of the
devastating results of bigotry and hatred becoming national policy.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie
Director
Commission on Social Action
of Reform Judaism
If "never again" is to mean anything, we must begin here, today, now.
Never again will we cease our efforts to shatter intolerance and
bigotry the very foundation of homophobia;
The Religious Action Center
is under the auspices of
the Commission on Social
Action of Reform Judaism,
Never again will we stand idly by the persecution of our sisters and
a joint instrumentality of
brothers;
the Central Conference of
American Rabbis and
the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations
Never again will we allow the victims of bigotry to be blamed for
with its affiliates;
American Conference
their own persecution accused of perversion and immorality.
of Cantors,
Association of Reform
Zionists of America,
I stand here on behalf of the vast majority of the religious community
National Federation of
Temple Brotherhoods,
to say to all Americans: Beware those who would justify hatred and
National Federation of
injustice in the name of God. For the true perversion and real
Temple Sisterhoods,
North American Federation
immorality is the invocation of the name of God to destroy, degrade,
of Temple Youth.
and demean God's children.
The ban on gays in the military is unjust, immoral, vicious and cruel.
In the name of decency, in the name of freedom, and, yes, in the name
of God, it must not stand.
TESTIMONY
OF
THE REV. DR. PAUL H. SHERRY
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
MAY 4, 1993
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. My name is Paul Sherry. I'm
speaking today as President of the United Church of Christ, a denomination of 1.6 million
members and 6400 local churches. My testimony is based on the policy statements of our
General Synod, the most widely representative body in our denomination. Our General
Synod and other national bodies have spoken out many times and in many ways affirming
civil rights for gay and lesbian persons. While in our system of church governance no one
person speaks for or attempts to represent the beliefs of all the members or all the
churches, the General Synod does offer moral guidance to our churches and for the nation.
While my testimony today is based on my personal convictions and the position of
the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, I have also been asked by many of my
colleagues among religious leaders to convey to you their own support for ending
discrimination against gay and lesbian persons in the military. While each of us would want
to speak out of a distinctive theological tradition, and is accountable to policy bases
formulated by differing structures of authority, we share a common conviction that the civil
rights guaranteed for all citizens should be guaranteed for gay and lesbian persons as well.
Gay and lesbian persons should have the same right to military service as heterosexual
persons, and should be held to the same standard of conduct. The religious leaders who
have asked me to convey this conviction to you include:
The Rt. Rev. Edmond L. Browning, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal
Church
The Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
The Rev. Dr. Herbert W. Chilstrom, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America
Bishop Frederick C. James, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Dr. C. William Nichols, General Minister and President, Christian
Church (Disciples of Christ)
The Rev. Troy Perry, Elder of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan
Community Churches
Rabbi Alexander Schindler, President of the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations
Dr. William Schulz, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association
Dr. Gordon L. Sommers, President of the Provincial Elders Conference,
Moravian Church in America
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, Council of Bishops of the United Methodist
Church
Dr. Daniel E. Weiss, General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches
A letter to then President-elect Bill Clinton in November urging him to carry out his
commitment to rescind the ban also carried the signature of Dr. James Andrews, Stated
Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
There are four fundamental points I wish to make today:
1.
There is significant support in the religious community for lifting the ban
against gay and lesbian persons in the military.
2.
The sexual misconduct of military personnel, not their sexual orientation,
should be the issue.
3.
Prejudice should not determine policy.
4.
The moral fiber of our nation is very much at stake in this issue.
I. Religious Support for Lifting the Ban
The support of my colleagues among U.S. religious leaders, to which I have already
referred, is evidence that a very significant part of the religious community, in most cases
authorized by the official positions of national policy-making assemblies, has for years urged
an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Our denomination first passed a
resolution in 1969 on "Homosexuals and the Law" urging an end to discrimination in
employment, among other things. In 1975 the General Synod issued a major
pronouncement entitled "Civil Liberties Without Discrimination Related to Affectional or
Sexual Preference." (See Appendix). In 1972 the first openly gay minister in our church
was ordained by the Golden Gate Association of the United Church of Christ. This action
of a regional body was affirmed by the General Synod the following year, and soon
sexual orientation was added to our national equal opportunity policy. As recently as 1991
the General Synod again overwhelmingly reaffirmed the gifts for ministry of gay, lesbian and
bisexual people, urging that they be welcomed and recognized in local churches and regional
bodies.
There has been an assumption that throughout church history the church has opposed
homosexuality and considered it a sin. Many scholarly studies of church history, however,
reveal that this hostility has not been consistent. There have been periods of fierce
opposition, as well as periods of tolerance.
The Bible has been used by some as a basis for the condemnation of homosexuality.
However, there is much debate about this question and about how to interpret the six brief
references to homosexuality contained in the Bible. One thing is clear. Scripture does point
us, over and over again, to the core of the Christian Gospel -- the need for love to be at the
center of our lives and an overriding concern for justice and mercy for the oppressed.
For these reasons, it is distressing to note how this issue is often portrayed as a battle
between the religious community on the one hand, resisting any change, and the gay
community on the other hand, seeking change. This is simply not accurate. This perception
is frequently promoted by the media as was the case, for example, during the recent March
on Washington on April 25. The thousands of members of the religious delegation
participating in the march were, for the most part, ignored by the media, including the
Washington Post, which chose instead to cover the small gathering of religious persons
opposing the march with shouted slogans. As you consider this issue of such fundamental
public and personal importance, I hope you will take into account the broad support from
the religious community I represent today.
II.
People of all sexual orientations should be judged by their behavior, in this case
specifically by their sexual misconduct. People should not be judged by their sexual
orientation.
While the religious community and the nation are still in the midst of a profound and
difficult debate about the moral character of various forms of sexual behavior, there is a
growing conviction that sexual orientation is not an adequate or appropriate basis for
judging others. We are what we are and who we are. Before God, all people should be
treated with profound dignity, for Jews and Christians alike believe all of us are created in
the image of God. From this fundamental principle our forbears developed a constitutional
system that has slowly expanded its circle of those afforded equal protection before the law.
A person's race or gender no longer can be cause to deny equal opportunity or full
participation in our society, including the military. I believe the time has come, indeed is
long overdue, to extend this basic American principle to gay and lesbian citizens as well.
Given the fears, misunderstanding and prejudice surrounding homosexuality in our
society, it is not surprising that the change in policy being proposed to the military is being
met with uncertainty, resistance and in some cases hostility. This same reaction has
characterized many other sectors of our society, including the church. I would like to share,
briefly, the experience of our own church as it has struggled with this issue in its own life.
When the Golden Gate Association of the United Church of Christ ordained the
Rev. Bill Johnson in 1972, he was the first openly gay or lesbian person ordained by a
mainline Protestant denomination. What made this significant event possible? It was the
fact that Christians in the San Francisco Bay area had come to know Bill Johnson. He was
not a cause but a person. Because they knew him they were able to see and appreciate his
ability. They had grown to trust him, his integrity and his gift for ministry. Rather than
judge him for his orientation, they were able to judge him on the basis of his conduct.
Preconceptions and prejudices fade before the knowledge of a person's character, conduct
and ability. The process of transformation is slow. It is still difficult for many church
people to get to know gay and lesbian Christians because the church is not generally
perceived to be a safe place for homosexual persons to reveal their orientation. In spite of
the challenge, however, we are working at the task of creating safe and accepting
environments.
I believe this experience can be repeated in military service. Gays and lesbians are
already serving in the military. They need to be judged, not on their sexual orientation, but
on their whole being, on their conduct and their integrity and their skill and their principles
and the way they perform their duties. The current policy forces gay and lesbian persons
to lie. They are forced to commit an immoral act: to lie about who they are. I believe
when they are allowed to tell the truth and to be known, trust will build, just as it is slowly
beginning to build in the church.
As we have watched thousands and thousands of church people grow in their
understanding of human sexuality, there is one consistent factor in this profound cultural
change: heterosexual people in our churches have begun to know openly gay and lesbian
Christians, and as that has happened, old assumptions and stereotypes have disappeared.
We believe that will happen in the military.
So what we are asking for is simply an end to discrimination based on sexual
orientation. As the focus shifts from orientation to behavior, we recognize that many issues
of sexual conduct or misconduct will need to be examined and addressed. We expect that
the military, which already has quite different rules for sexual behavior than the general
society, will need to extend those same rules to gays and lesbians. Given the problem of
sexual harassment revealed in such recent events as the Tailhook scandal, questions of
adaptations to the code of conduct for openly gay or lesbian persons may in fact be only a
small portion of the much larger question of sexual conduct by all military personnel.
III. Prejudice should not determine policy.
Few would maintain today that the current policy can be defended by arguing that
gay people are not good soldiers. The honorable and courageous service of countless gay
and lesbian persons clearly contradicts this. Instead, the rationale for keeping the ban now
largely centers on what it will do to morale, unit cohesion, mutual trust, recruitment and
retention. In other words, the current ban is based on how the military believes straight
soldiers will react to openly gay and lesbian soldiers. The military fears the prejudice of its
own troops. The ban assumes that homophobia is in control and that commanders are
either unwilling or unable to change that.
Many have noted that these same fears and objections were raised when the military
faced racial integration and when the military faced admitting women. The echoes of
previous prejudice are audible today. Therefore, I assume that many of the same techniques
that have helped the military make adjustments to race and gender differences will be
helpful in the current context. One key is certainly leadership. Strong military leadership
is necessary to maintain a work environment which is comfortable for all personnel. The
command needs to set the tone for the troops to follow. Commanding officers can be
responsible for insuring that sexism, racism and homophobia are not supported or condoned
in their units.
In this regard, we greatly admire the leadership that President Clinton has exhibited
on this issue. If we are to rid our society of homophobia, strong leadership is needed. We
appreciated that leadership from President Clinton, and we ask for that same leadership
from the Congress and from the military.
This is a time of societal change, change that is long overdue. We have watched
heterosexuals members of our churches change as they have come to know gay and lesbian
Christians on a personal basis. Prejudice is based, in part, on fear of the unknown. It is
time to end a discriminatory policy based on prejudice, a policy that itself promotes
prejudice.
IV. The moral fiber of our nation is very much at stake in this debate.
Some would argue that our society's very structure is being undermined by gay and
lesbian persons declaring their orientation openly and demanding the civil rights guaranteed
to all other American citizens. We see it quite the opposite. For the ban against gays and
lesbians in the military runs counter to all the basic principles of our nation: liberty and
justice for all. To allow the military to discriminate is morally intolerable and contradictory
to the values that undergird our society.
To quote from our 1975 General Synod pronouncement, "Denial and violation of the
civil liberties of the individual and her or his right to equal protection under the law
defames that worth and dignity. and is, therefore, morally wrong. Our Christian faith
requires that we respond to the injustice in our society manifested in the denial and
violation of the civil liberties of persons whose affectional or sexual preference is toward
persons of the same gender."
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I urge you to do that which is morally
right, that which leads us toward a society free from fear, a society that encourages honesty
and accountability, a society where prejudice is overcome. Please end discrimination in the
military. Thank you.
Dr. Paul H. Sherry, President
United Church of Christ
700 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
(216)736-2101
APPENDIX 1
TO
TESTIMONY OF THE REV. DR. PAUL H. SHERRY
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
before the
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
May 4, 1993
WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
by
The Rev. Jay Lintner
Director, Washington Office, UCC Office for Church in Society
The gulf which divides the religious community on the issue of
homosexuality is very much related to a basic division in the
religious community on how one reads the Bible.
Fundamentalists and more conservative Christians see the Bible
as literally true, as word for word the Word of God. Mainline
church people in general see the Bible as the story and history of
God's saving acts. Isolated passages of scripture need to be
interpreted in terms of the fundamental themes of scripture and in
terms of the witness they make to the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
When scripture seems unclear or ambiguous or contradictory, the
context for the scripture becomes very important. Rather than pull
the questionable text out of context and make it a general rule for
living, the context is explored, to see what that text meant to the
people who wrote it and to the people who first read it. Words and
meanings change, and if one wants to understand what is the Word of
God that speaks through the Bible, one has to seek to understand
the text in its historical context and its literary setting to
understand the meaning and see the witness to God being made.
There is an assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
Actually, this is highly debatable. On many issues the Bible is
extremely clear, with hundreds of references to poverty and war, to
the need to pursue justice for all who are oppressed and the need
for love to be at the center of our lives. "Judge not, that you be
not judged,' for example, is a theme that runs through the Bible
the danger of using religion against people, to hurt people.
There is no reference to homosexuality in the four Gospels, and
only six brief references to homosexuality in the rest of the
Bible. All six have significant ambiguity as to how they are to be
applied to the current debate. None talk about sexual orientation,
very much at the center of modern thinking but an unknown concept
in Biblical times.
While this paper is by no means an exhaustive treatment of these
six passages, it does attempt to point to the basic directions
taken by modern scholarship.
Genesis 19:1-11. "...the men of Sodom, both young and old, all
the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they
called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us, so that we may know them. (Genesis
19:4-5. All quotations from the New Revised Standard Version)
What is the sin of sodom, that led to its destruction? Because
the word "sodomy" came from this passage, some have attempted to
put all the blame on the "sin of homosexuality." This is simply
wrong.
Scripture itself has a more complex and different understanding
of the sin of city of sodom. Ezekiel 16:48-49, for example, says,
"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the
poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things
before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it." And Jesus
instructs his disciples, "If anyone will not welcome you or listen
to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that
house or town. Truly, I tell you, it will be more tolerable for
the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that
town." (Matthew 10:14-15)
The interpretation of the sin of Sodom given by Jesus in the
Matthew passage is much closer to current scholarship. The sin of
Sodom is inhospitality. In Biblical times those who read the Sodom
story would contrast the hospitality Lot offers the two strangers
with the inhospitality and hostile treatment offered by the crowd.
That is the central sin in the story.
Was homosexuality a part of the story? Is that what Ezekiel
means by "abominable things?" Some scholars would argue that the
words "to know" do not necessarily have a sexual meaning in the
text. A more natural reading of the text does understand that all
the men of Sodom intended to rape the strangers.
It follows, then, that the Bible condemns gang rape of men by
men, presumably heterosexual men. In Biblical cultures a
victorious army would sometimes rape those they defeated, as a way
of humiliating them.
To condemn all homosexuality on the basis of this story is
impossible.
Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put
to death; their blood is upon them."
Those seeking a divine commandment against male homosexuality
have it in these passages. There is no question but what
homosexual relations are condemned in Leviticus.
But are the commandments of Leviticus binding Jews and
Christians today? These are passages from the Holiness Code, the
liturgical handbook of the Levitical priesthood. Jews interpret
these Levitical commandments in terms of the Talmud. Christians
interpret these Levitical commandments in terms of the New
Testament. And the New Testament moves most Christians beyond the
commandments of the Holiness Code.
Also in the Holiness Code, for example, are the rules for
slaughtering domestic animals, the prohibition of eating meat with
blood (i.e., rare meat), and penalties for pagan practices, along
with a prohibition of a number of a sexual relations, including
restrictions on relations with a woman who is menstruating (an
abomination). Which of these are still binding and which are not?
When Leviticus 19:18 says, "You shall not take vengeance or bear
a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your
neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord," there is solid resonance
with the fundamental message of the New Testament. Jesus quotes
this as one of the two great commandments.
When Leviticus 19:19 says, "You shall not let your animals breed
with a different kind; you shall not SOW your field with two kinds
of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different
materials," what are we to make of this? This sounds like the kind
of law that Christians have set aside, following Jesus and St.
Paul.
Is Leviticus 18:22 more like Leviticus 19:18 or 19:19? There is
room for debate. Different Christians are bound to come to
different conclusions.
And for those who decide it is still binding, what do they do
with Leviticus 20:13? Does sodomy merit the death penalty? Some
Christians do, indeed, urge death for homosexuals, to the
embarrassment of a great many other Christians. Is it possible to
keep Leviticus 18:22 without keeping Leviticus 20:13? For those
Christians who decide to ignore the warnings of Jesus and Paul
about overly legalistic interpretations of scripture, one wonders
where the line will be drawn. The Bible simply doesn't say enough
about homosexuality to draw a line with any certainty.
I Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves,
the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers---none of these will
inherit the kingdom of God."
The two Greek words, translated in the New Revised Standard
Version as "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" have presented
problems for all translators. In Greek they are "malakoi" and
"arsenokoitai. Robin Scroggs, Professor of New Testament at Union
Theological Seminary in New York, devoted a book to analyzing these
terms, since he was distressed with the way the New Testament had
been used in debates on homosexuality.
"Malakos" literally means "soft" and by extension "effeminate."
The word occurs in several Greek texts of the time referring "to
the 'call-boy,' the youth who consciously imitated feminine styles
and ways and who walked the thin line between passive homosexual
activity for pleasure and that for pay." (P. 106 in Robin Scroggs,
The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983).
"Arsenokoitai" is a less ambiguous term, and almost certainly
refers to male homosexuality. "If the malakos points to the
effeminate call-boy, then the arsenokoites in this context must be
the active partner who keeps the malakos as a 'mistress' or who
hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires
A very
specific dimension of pederasty is being denounced with these two
terms. (Scroggs, p. 108).
I Timothy 1:8-10: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses
it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid
down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient,
for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for
those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,
fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and
whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching."
The three Greek words translated as "fornicators, sodomites, and
slave traders" above are "pornoi, arsenokoitai, and andrapodistai."
Robin Scroggs, in the book quoted above, feels that "pornoi" may be
mistranslated as "fornicators:" "Pornos. This word in normal
Greek usage means 'male prostitute' pointing to either the male
who sells himself, or the slave in the brothel house. Hellenistic
Jewish and early Christian usage, however, skews the apparently
straightforward definition." (Scroggs, p. 119) Thus, while in the
New Testament generally it does usually mean "fornicators," it also
could function in this passage much like "malakos" functioned in
the last passage.
"The three words would thus fit together and could be
translated: 'male prostitutes, males who lie (with them), and
slave dealers (who procure them) I thus draw the conclusion
that the vice list in I Timothy is not condemnatory of
homosexuality in general, not even pederasty in general, but that
specific form of pederasty which consisted of the enslaving of boys
or youth for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult
males." (Scroggs, p. 120).
Romans 1:26-7: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading
passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for
unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural
intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one
another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in
their own persons the due penalty for their error."
The Romans passage is generally the most quoted of the New
Testament passages used to condemn homosexuality. It is also the
only passage in the Bible condemning lesbians, since all other
passages relate only to male homosexuality.
One of the ironies of this passage being used to condemn
homosexuals as sinners is that the point of Romans 1:18 to 3:20 is
to show that the whole world, Gentile and Jew, consists of sinners.
Romans 1:19-32 shows the failure of the Gentiles, largely because
of their idolatry, and Romans 2:1-24 shows the failure of the Jews.
All of this is to lead up to Paul's major point that, because we
all are sinners, we all need the saving grace of faith in Jesus
Christ. Thus, using Romans 1:26-27 to set some people apart as
special sinners is contrary to the principal point at the start of
Romans. The two New Testament verses most often used to condemn
homosexuality are in a text trying to make a theological point, not
one offering ethical concerns or admonitions.
In these verses, however, it is clear that Paul shares with most
Hellenistic Jews of his time a very negative view of homosexual
acts. This negative view has two underlying beliefs. One is the
Jewish old Testament attitude that spilling or wasting the seed of
men was a sin, and sexual acts were only for procreation. The
second is that many surrounding cultures practiced temple
prostitution, including male temple prostitution (condemned several
times in the old Testament), so that male homosexuality was linked
to idolatry.
Note that Paul puts Romans 1:26-27 in the context of condemning
the Gentiles for their idolatry.
Note also that Paul lists homosexual practices as a Gentile
"passion," not Jewish. In this Paul shares the general view of his
time that homosexual acts were not common to the Jewish community,
but were frequent in the Gentile world, and particularly Greek
culture.
Robin Scroggs, who analyzes Paul's understanding of
homosexuality at length, concludes that "the likelihood is that
Paul is thinking only about Pederasty, just as was Philo. There
was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world
which could have come to mind." (Scroggs, p. 116).
To quote from Scroggs more general conclusions,
"Only in Romans 1 is there a negative judgment made on both
female as well as male homosexuality which could be considered a
general indictment. Even here, the entire cumulative evidence we
have looked at throughout this book suggests that despite the
general language Paul, with regard to the statement about male
homosexuality, must have had, could only have had, pederasty in
mind. That Paul uses here the argument from nature might mean, of
course, that he would have made the same judgment about any form of
homosexuality. No one can legitimately conclude, however, that he
would have done so. We just do not know. What he would have said
about the contemporary model of adult/adult mutuality in same-sex
relationships, we shall also never know. I am not sure it is even
useful to speculate." (p. 122)
"What the New Testament was against was the image of
homosexuality as pederasty and primarily here its more sordid and
dehumanizing dimensions. One would regret it if somebody in the
New Testament had not opposed such dehumanization." (p. 126)
"The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical
judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate.
They should no longer be used in denominational discussions about
homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify refusal of
ordination, not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply
because it does not address the issues involved." (p. 127)
For those who want to condemn homosexuality, these six texts
have provided considerable historical ammunition. However, as can
be seen, all six have ambiguities. Yes, the Holiness Code in
Leviticus does prohibit a man lying with a man. But few of the
laws set forth in the Holiness Code are still perceived as relevant
for today Yes, Paul does share the general attitude of his time
and culture toward that form of homosexuality familiar to him:
pederasty. But does Paul's condemnation of pederasty extend to a
general condemnation of homosexuality as we know it today?
Are these Biblical texts enough to generate the kind of moral
certainty now being exhibited by some parts of the Christian and
Jewish communities?
or is it time for a fresh look at what it means that God has
created all people, all sexual orientations? How has large parts
of the church gotten into the position of condemning what God has
created?
The core Biblical truth is that God loves all people, and God
calls all people to relate in love. What does this mean for
responsible and moral behavior by those whose sexual orientation is
gay or lesbian?
The Bible witnesses to Jesus Christ as the one who brings God's
invitation to human wholeness and community. In Jesus we do not
see a condemnation of homosexuality or sexual orientation, but a
call to reach out and form human community, to move beyond
stereotypes to achieve new and deeper understanding of who is our
neighbor and how we are to relate in love.
The Bible witness to Paul is not one that ever mentions sexual
orientation. Paul's central message is that we are not saved by
what we do or don't do, nor are we saved by who we are. We are
justified only by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and that grace
is freely available to all people.
Given how little the Bible has to say about homosexuality and
how much the Bible has to say about reaching out to the oppressed
and to those alienated and separated from the community, perhaps it
is long past time to quit using the Bible to sanction hatred and
violence and alienation, and begin in seriousness a new
conversation.
Sources:
In addition to a number of papers, the four principal books used in
this paper are:
John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1976, 1988.
James B. Nelson, Embodiment. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978.
Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Is The Homosexual My
Neighbor? San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980
Robin Scroggs. The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983.